This would not count as incitement, unlike the carrying of posters which call for the enemies of Islam to be beheaded which could, in theory, be prosecuted under a number of offences.

So, is the kind of case envisaged by the prime minister likely to succeed before a jury?

James Libson thinks it probably will.

"In the current environment, with heightened security fears following 7/7, jurors may well conclude that the new law on glorification has been broken.

"However, a few years further on, when the present events have become history, a different view might be taken if someone was to praise the 7/7 bombers."

Proportionality

Unlike the Public Order Act, which requires the consent of the Attorney-General before a prosecution can be brought, a prosecution for glorification would be brought after consultation between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

However, lawyers point out that the same issue of free speech may be a factor in both cases.

It is likely that when the first prosecution is brought under the new law, there will be arguments about proportionality - in other words, whether a restriction on someone's freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act can be justified in order to punish indirect encouragement of terrorism.

Getting the glorification clause through the Commons may be only a stage in a longer legal process.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.